However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 22, 2011, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the Defendant’s embezzlement case (Presiding Justice D) against Ulsan District Court No. 2010Kadan2747 of the above court on May 1999, 200, and C 2/3 of the lower part of the lower part, focusing on the surface of the road on the map, as agreed to F, was defective as C and 1/3 of the lower part of the upper part, focusing on the surface of the road on the map to F, and the lower part was also defective as F.

‘At this time the testimony was made to the effect that the testimony was made.

However, the facts were that F and C did not enter into such an agreement or conversation after the successful bid, and the Defendant did not have any such conversation.

After taking an oath as above, the Defendant made a false statement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant to the effect that the defendant testified in the first trial record as above;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness (No. 25 of the evidence list: Part of the protocol of examination of the witness: 2010 high group 2747, and 3 times);

1. Loan certificate ( January 18, 2007);

1. As to each recording record (G Office, December 18, 2009, and January 22, 2010), the defense counsel asserts that the defendant's testimony conforms to the truth, and thus, it is not guilty.

However, at the time when F delegates the authority to sell part of the lower part of the E forest in Yangsan-si to C, the fact that F prepared a loan certificate with respect to the amount corresponding to 1/3 shares that the F is entitled to receive at the time of delegation of the authority to sell it to the Yellow Construction Corporation, and the cadastral map to the effect that C partitioned ownership of the lower part of the land at C was made late for tax reduction and exemption. However, even if C is based on the grounds of appeal submitted by C in the relevant civil case, it is stated that the FCH invested each 1/3 of the above forest at the time of winning the bid, and thus, it is contradictory to the Defendant’s testimony that C agreed on the content of divided ownership of 2/3 on